OzBargain 2019 EoFY Charity Donations - $24,000 to Charities of Your Choice

• 

  Skramit on 17/06/2019 - 15:04

  +19

  Have to shout out to prostate cancer foundation. Their funding is significantly lower than Breast Cancer - cant remember the exact stats but its funding is minuscule in comparison just because it doesn't have the same public profile and high profile champions in the media (IMO). And it's one of, if not the biggest killer of males in Aus. So get behind it folks!

  • 

    dust on 17/06/2019 - 15:13

    +4

    Leading cause of death for males is coronary heart disease, followed by lung cancer and dementia/alzheimer. Don't think bowel cancer cracks the top 5.

    Of course leading causes of death is heavily impacted by age too. Leading cause of death for those aged between 15 and 44 is suicide.

    • 

      Skramit on 17/06/2019 - 15:15

      +5

      I meant in the cancer category, sorry.

      "Prostate cancer is the second most common cancer diagnosed in men in Australia1 and the third most common cause of cancer death. One in 7 men will be diagnosed with prostate cancer by the age of 85. It is more common in older men, with 63% of cases diagnosed in men over 65 years of age." https://www.cancer.org.au/about-cancer/types-of-cancer/prost…

      Still worthy of a shoutout!!

    • 

      MagicMushroom on 17/06/2019 - 16:56

      +19

      Breast cancer
      - 124 cases per 100,000 females
      - 20 deaths per 100,000 females
      - 91% chance of surviving for five years
      - Direct fund for research: $85.9M
      - Direct fund from organisations to research: ~$143M

      Prostate cancer
      - 141 cases per 100,000 males
      - 23 deaths per 100,000 males
      - 95% chance of surviving for five years
      - Direct fund for research: $41.6M
      - Direct fund from organisations to research: ~$74M

      • 

        moar bargains on 17/06/2019 - 20:41

        +8

        So no statistically significant difference in population prevalence or mortality, yet one receives half the funding of the other…

        • 

          timthetoolman on 17/06/2019 - 21:38

          +8

          @moar bargains: Male privelege perhaps?

          • 

            moar bargains on 17/06/2019 - 23:55

            +2

            @timthetoolman: That must be it!

            • 

              CaptainNewspeak on 19/06/2019 - 08:14

              +1

              @moar bargains: Tits are way more marketable than the thing up a man's bum that makes him cum

        • 

          trongy on 20/06/2019 - 09:09

          +1

          @moar bargains: Some statistics that are not shown that I am curious about:

          • years of life expectancy lost to each form of cancer.

          Death at any age is tragic, but death of a 35 year old from cancer is a greater loss for the community than the death of an 85 year old from cancer. From what I can see both breast and prostate cancer are more common as people get older (despite the fact that younger women with breast cancer seem to get the publicity) so real statistics would be informative.

          • comparable statistics from 10, 20 and 30 years ago.

          I believe that the current breast cancer death rate has had great improvements over the last few decades due to better detection and treatment. I'm curious about the trend for prostate cancer. I've heard that there's a dilemma in the medical community about screening for prostate cancer - if we increase screening it's probable that more slow progressing prostate cancers will be detected in older men. Treatment of a prostate cancer that probably wont kill the older men may reduce life expectancy of that group.

          edit:
          It appears that both breast cancer and prostate cancer are somewhat linked to smoking. I'm also curious to know how strong the link is. Perhaps it would be more effective to spend less on research and more on reducing the smoking rate.

          • 

            moar bargains on 20/06/2019 - 12:20

            @trongy: How much time do you have? And how well do you understand epidemiology and statistics? ;)

            But they are excellent questions, and valid points to consider rather than just a simple mortality rate. Rabbit hole here I come…

      • 

        idonotknowwhy on 19/06/2019 - 08:56

        Do either of these charities actually fund research to prevent or at least cure the cancers?

        • 

          Skramit on 19/06/2019 - 12:31

          +1

          @idonotknowwhy: Yes.

          https://www.prostate.org.au/research/research-program/

          • 

            idonotknowwhy on 20/06/2019 - 16:17

            @Skramit: Thanks, you guys convinced me, voted.

  • 

    Godric on 19/06/2019 - 08:16

    +3

    I vote for balls

• 

  Ryanek on 17/06/2019 - 15:12

  +13

  So many good causes, that's a tough vote.

• 

  [Deactivated] on 17/06/2019 - 15:53

  +4

  RFDS. They provide a service to people in inaccessible regions regardless of race/religion and they have minimal administrative costs.

• 

  watwatwat on 17/06/2019 - 15:58

  +10

  Anyone got a list of the charities with the highest percentage of money going to the cause? I don't want to vote for those who waste 80% on admin cost.

  • 

    toasty on 17/06/2019 - 18:45

    +11

    MSF Australia is 80% on missions, 15% on fundraising and 5% on administration. Source: https://www.msf.org.au/our-finances

    Also they are non-religious, impartial, independent and neutral. They purposefully put restrictions on government funding to maintain impartiality.

    I voted for them because I donate to them every year. I’m especially pleased that they are in places like the DRC trying to control the spread of Ebola (despite getting attacked for their efforts).

    • 

      idonotknowwhy on 19/06/2019 - 08:46

      I don't know a lot about charities.
      Is it better if they're not religious? If so, why?
      What's an example of a charity which isn't impartial, and what happens if they're not impartial?

      • 

        abb on 19/06/2019 - 10:10

        +11

        Is it better if they're not religious? If so, why?

        Imagine, if you will, you are uneducated, illiterate, and dying of hunger. A convoy of shiny trucks rolls into town, worth as much as your nation's GDP. Some well-dressed foreigners leap out, and tell everyone they'll feed them for the whole year. Fantastic!

        They build a food hall, with a steeply pitched roof, and a lower-case "t" sign at the apex.

        To get your food, you simply have to sit through a brief talk, in your language, about "God". Now, you know all about the earth spirits, but these rich foreigners with food tell you the earth spirits are wrong, their "God" is the true path. It's hard to argue with them, seeing as how the earth spirits were letting you starve but this "God" has brought unimaginable prosperity.

        ---

        So, this is clearly a work of fiction, but it (hopefully) illustrates my point that religious charities are in a very powerful position to convert people into their religion. If you think they don't preach while doing their work, well, I've got a bridge to sell you.

        It's great that they're out there, they no doubt do good work, I believe them when they say they help people regardless of religious affiliation, and I know they think they're doing the right thing by preaching, but personally I don't donate to any religious charities because I feel their preaching is inherently coercive due to the power dynamic.

        ---

        For impartiality, you could imagine a scenario where a charity affiliated with one side of a war might help only the wounded civilians associated to their particular side, or one that gives food only to a certain sub-group of a famine-afflicted town.

        • 

          RefusdClassification on 20/06/2019 - 00:17

          @abb: Personally I think it is a good bargain, to exchange one ideology (paganism/panentheism) for another ideology (montheism)in exchange for material prosperity via handouts.

          If a government wanted to increase religious participation (or participation in a non-religious ideological group), all it would have to do is to mandate that people would have to regualrly participate in order to receive any form of welfare payment of subsidy from the government. Sort of like work for the dole, except "Work for God" in this case.

          • 

            [Deactivated] on 20/06/2019 - 11:26

            @RefusdClassification: Are you being facetious here? Does this situation genuinely not strike you as a bit manipulative?

        • 

          Lichen6420 on 20/06/2019 - 13:41

          @abb: Very well put.

        • 

          idonotknowwhy on 20/06/2019 - 16:20

          @abb: Makes sense, I was only thinking about it from the perspective of them helping people within Australia.

          • 

            abb on 21/06/2019 - 09:24

            @idonotknowwhy: You think that scenario doesn't apply to Australia!?

            • 

              idonotknowwhy on 21/06/2019 - 13:14

              @abb:

              Some well-dressed foreigners leap out, and tell everyone they'll feed them for the whole year.

              know all about the earth spirits

              They build a food hall

              Yeah, I assumed you were talking about them going to 3rd world countries and converting people.

              • 

                abb on 21/06/2019 - 13:50

                @idonotknowwhy: It equally applies to Indigenous communities (if you ignore the non-core detail about the trucks costing more than GDP).

      • 

        bluesky on 19/06/2019 - 12:01

        +1

        For the most part, and for most practical purposes, I don't think it matters whether the charities themselves are founded as religious organisations. They all have a mission, to put their faith in action – which is to help and care for the needy and poor, without discrimination. That is the basic tenet of most religions: to be kind and neighbourly (which does not pay heed to the race/religion of the neighbour).

        E.g. Salvation Army actually says in its mission statement to "meet human needs in His name without discrimination". And St Vincent de Paul has, as its key values "Service to all regardless of creed, ethnic or social background, health, gender or political opinions."

        I think the major considerations as to which charities to support are: the nature of work that they carry out, the causes they are trying to address, how their funds are allocated, and any scandals that we know of.

      • 

        Neverpayretail on 21/06/2019 - 16:33

        At the end of the day a religions primary purpose is the spreading of the religion, anyone who gets helped in these efforts is entirely incidental to the prime objective. If religion doesn't grow it dies so aid given is often contingent on that purpose as such there tends to be a coercive influence in religious "giving". So secular giving is more fair in my opinion since its true giving, as nothing has to be accepted in order to recieve the giving.

  • 

    toniyellow on 17/06/2019 - 19:49

    +6

    https://www.changepath.com.au/ will link you to info about finances of Australian charities, but percent spent on admin is blunt and somewhat dangerous.

    Charity A gets a volunteer to process their credit card donations. They're actually a conman secretly recording credit card details of elderly donors to defraud them, but no one notices as there are very few paid employees to supervise.

    Charity B pays the minimum wage, $36k. They have a staffer who isn't qualified, tries hard but make mistakes like storing credit card info unsafely in an excel spreadsheet.

    Charity C offers $50k. In the corporate sector this job pays $60k, but there are people willing to take the pay cut to work for a charity. They make sure things are done securely, reducing the risk of fraud. There is still quite a bit of staff turnover as they get sick of the pay and go corporate.

    Charity D the CEO pays their brother in law $120k to do this. They make a lot of mistakes and store the info unsafely.

    This is a simplified example so somewhat inaccurate but asking for lowest percent spent on admin can't tell you which charities are making good choices and which are making poor choices.

    I think we should actually be demanding more transparency - for charities to report how they spent money, why they made those choices, and benchmark to what similar charities spend and what the corporate sector spends.

    Unfortunately transparency costs money - someone has to gather data and write a report and if people demand low admin, charities can't waste money on that.

    The government could do more through the ACNC and donors could be more careful about what questions they ask. Simply demanding low cost can be really dangerous.

    • 

      watwatwat on 17/06/2019 - 20:21

      You know what else is dangerous? Consistently wasting 80% of donated money and people are claiming tax deductions for all that.

      If more money leads to more skilled people and more surety, than you must love the Shane Warne Foundation: https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3337449/Allegations…

      You talk a lot about adding bureaucracy but ultimately you need both transparency and to incentivise charities to bring costs down.

      And here is Charlie Teo also talking about high administration costs as being a bad thing: https://www.news.com.au/lifestyle/health/health-problems/neu…

      • 

        toniyellow on 17/06/2019 - 22:19

        +1

        I didn't say high costs is good, I specifically included scenario D, an example of high being bad, and linked to a website that goes into much more detail than low/high.

        If you blindly ask for a list with the lowest admin % you leave yourself open to easily being deceived by something just as bad as the Shane Warne foundation hiding behind a low percent admin costs because no-one ever looks deeper than that to see if money spent on the cause is spent effectively. Money being spent on the cause and money being spent WELL on the cause can be very different things.

        • 

          Bargain80 on 19/06/2019 - 09:08

          @toniyellow: to be fair, we can't rely only on percentage.
          but also have to look at the actual money.

  • 

    abb on 19/06/2019 - 09:51

    the highest percentage of money going to the cause?

    This talk on the topic might be of interest. TL;DR: Would you rather 99% of $100, 85% of $1M, or 70% of $10M ?

    https://www.ted.com/talks/dan_pallotta_the_way_we_think_abou…

  • 

    RefusdClassification on 20/06/2019 - 00:25

    I read that people doing signups for charities (the CBD is full of these locusts) get 60% comission. Chartities aren't about helping others; they are self-help, designed to enrich the lazy + greedy people running them. I only support the principle of donations if they do straight to the recipient with no middle man profiteering eg donating to Wikipedia, to somebody who runs a website you find useful, to somebody who creates free software.

    Definitely don't donate to medical research. The end result is a chemical or machine or procedure being patented by a multinational. By donating to medical research you are resdistributing money to the rich shareholders of "big pharma".

  • 

    wyndham29 on 21/06/2019 - 06:17

    It's understandable to feel that way, but it's actually the wrong metric to measure a charity by! For example, maybe a village really needs toilets to stop preventable disease. They already have clean, running water. Charity A spends 50% of donations on admin, and in the process identifies this need, so builds 20 toilets. Charity B spends 10% on admin, doesn't research the issue much at all, and builds 20 wells. In this (silly) example, even though Charity A spent much more on "non charity" activities, it's clearly the better option

• 

  Reggie74 on 17/06/2019 - 16:47

  +5

  Great initiative, well done

  • 

    Butterfly Gocha on 17/06/2019 - 16:57

    +4

    Here here. Scotty is truly an altruistic person. Thanks

• 

  watwatwat on 17/06/2019 - 17:43

  lol donate to Salvation Army and support the owners of apartments in Mascot Tower: https://www.abc.net.au/news/2019-06-17/mascot-towers-residen…

  • 

    idonotknowwhy on 19/06/2019 - 08:16

    What's funny about that?

    • 

      watwatwat on 19/06/2019 - 12:38

      Well, one of the owners in there recently paid $1 million for their 1BDR apartment. I find it funny that you donate to charity, they'll take most of it in Administration and the rest could go to a millionaire.

      • 

        idonotknowwhy on 19/06/2019 - 13:24

        +2

        Somehow I doubt he's a millionaire anymore.
        Also, most homeless people weren't born homeless.

      • 

        donga100 on 19/06/2019 - 20:22

        +1

        Just because a bank will lend you a million dollars doesn't make you a millionaire.

        • 

          daitro on 21/06/2019 - 00:54

          -1

          @donga100: Is this a joke? A bank will not just lend anyone a million dollars. Have you ever been lent money before?

• 

  kahn on 17/06/2019 - 18:24

  +3

  The Make Gerry Harvey Great Again Fund.

• 

  bluesky on 17/06/2019 - 19:43

  +5

  Currently, donations to Mercy Ships before 30 June are matched by a supporter

  This tax-time your impact can go even further thanks to a generous supporter who is matching all gifts made to Mercy Ships programs before 30th June.

  This means your gift will be doubled to provide even more free surgeries for the world’s most vulnerable.

  How their donations are allocated:

  87c of each dollar Mercy Ships receives goes straight to our Ship and Field Operations - providing surgeries and world-class medical care to those who have no other hope. As little as 13c is set aside for the general costs and overhead expenses

  Info about charity:
  Mercy Ships brings hope and healing to the forgotten poor by mobilizing people and resources worldwide, and serving all people without regard for race, gender, or religion.
  Mercy Ship Overview
  Youtube channel

• 

  donga100 on 17/06/2019 - 20:10

  +5

  Was sad to see that Fred Hollows isn't on the list but then realised that's because they already received a donation at Christmas. Love your work Scotty!

• 

  hasselbladsnapper on 17/06/2019 - 21:03

  +2

  Mercy Ships, recently had a chance meeting with a couple from Holland while on a cruise. The topic of cruising was on the agenda, and by chance the wife mentioned that her now retired husband spends 3 months on another ship - the Mercy Ship!. I was also surprised that he/they pay for most of his expenses, including flights to Africa. I was so impressed with their kind and humble nature I also made a donation recently. The lifeline that the Mercy Ships offer to many very poor Africans needs as much support that can be generated.

  It would be great if in this Western consumer society - I'm looking at us in the OzBargain community!, perhaps we could avoid buying the next cheap LED torch or gizmo, and direct the money to the Mercy Ships …..it is also tax deductable, and matched one for one by our Government. Please help - Cheers.

• 

  SydneySwan on 18/06/2019 - 08:02

  +4

  Great effort Scotty.

• 

  psyren89 on 19/06/2019 - 00:29

  +1

  Would perhaps be useful to put a link to the ACNC in the OP for people to look up how charities distribute their funds.

• 

  idonotknowwhy on 19/06/2019 - 08:19

  +1

  Any of these charities doing dementia/Alzheimer's research?

  • 

    donga100 on 19/06/2019 - 20:23

    Alzheimer's Australia is excluded from this round because they received a donation in the Christmas giving.

• 

  AsSeenOnTv on 19/06/2019 - 08:20

  This money and the incomes of the guys who run this site come from advertising revenue. Please consider this before blocking ads. And thank you everyone for a great site!!!

  • 

    idonotknowwhy on 19/06/2019 - 08:42

    They also get a cashrewards-style referral kickback if people click deals while not logged in afaik.

    • 

      donga100 on 19/06/2019 - 20:24

      +1

      And the membership fees of all the Platinum and Professional subscribers.

• 

  SpotTheOzzie on 19/06/2019 - 08:46

  +1

  Scotty are you keen for another livestream interview where you can drop some huge exclusive bombshells!?!

  • 

    scotty on 19/06/2019 - 09:29

    +2

    livestream interview

    I am bad with anything livestream

    huge exclusive bombshells

    We usually reserve those on the April 1st.

• 

  fab boy on 19/06/2019 - 10:45

  Well done scotty. I love you man.

• 

  ca4cpa on 19/06/2019 - 10:54

  My vote counted now

• 

  mousie on 19/06/2019 - 11:15

  Great stuff Scotty. I have two disabled children on the NDIS with autism

  Please pm me if you would like a small community contribution too. I have saved a lot of money on your site.

• 

  BrokeB-tch on 19/06/2019 - 11:22

  Where’s beyond blue?

  • 

    polarq on 19/06/2019 - 17:07

    Did you read the FAQ in the description of the post?

  • 

    donga100 on 19/06/2019 - 20:25

    They got a donation at Christmas instead.

• 

  Trying2SaveABuck on 19/06/2019 - 13:30

  Either the salvos or the red cross i know a number of people fallen on hard time thats have been given a warm meal and a bed to stay for the night

  Big up Ozbargin team for supporting some really good causes there!

• 

  skywards on 19/06/2019 - 15:05

  +1

  Voted! Thanks for doing great work Scotty!

• 

  machej on 19/06/2019 - 16:34

  +1

  Great work as usual Scotty!

• 

  zrmx on 19/06/2019 - 16:49

  Good stuff =) Thanks scotty for the ongoing initiatives, and thanks to everyone voting.

• 

  JetBombat on 19/06/2019 - 19:24

  +3

  Can we give some love to the small guys working really hard for us all?

  Goongerah Environment Centre Office (GECO) is a grass roots community group based in the small town of Goongerah in far East Gippsland, Victoria. Since 1993 we have campaigned for protection of East Gippsland’s forests.

  Some of the stuff they've achieved having just one paid part time person (rest are volunteers):

  • Stopped logging in some of East Gippsland's precious forests. The Victorian government has removed 40 areas of forests that were earmarked for logging along the proposed route of the Sea to Summit hiking trail in East Gippsland!

  • Mapped, researched and proposed the 120km long hiking trail to link the coastal town of Bemm River to the summit of Mt Goongerah (Mt Ellery) in far East Gippsland

  • Exposed the logging in the media and empowered thousands of people to call on the government to protect these forests.

  • Work tirelessly to identify and protect many unique animals and centuries old trees from destruction. This page gives a great overview.

  I donated myself, but I am a small fish in the pond.

  Had a look on their parent group annual statement, it has many more achievements listed there.

• 

  fedwood on 19/06/2019 - 22:52

  Great work +1

• 

  relentless on 20/06/2019 - 00:46

  Keep it up

• 

  aam on 20/06/2019 - 09:35

  Great work Scotty & OzBargain!!

• 

  braussie on 20/06/2019 - 11:25

  amazing!

• 

  Waldo000000 on 20/06/2019 - 11:46

  +1

  Great initiative, though I'm not sure who to vote for, seeing as there aren't any bargains in this list. Compare to this list of the most cost-effective charities in the world, thanks to GiveWell: https://www.givewell.org/charities/top-charities

• 

  zqipz on 20/06/2019 - 12:27

  Great initiative. +1 for kids.

• 

  Gaz1 on 20/06/2019 - 14:07

  Such an amazing & generous thing to do.
  It's great to be part of this community.

• 

  RIPwallet on 20/06/2019 - 14:40

  +1

  Great work Scotty!

• 

  Homr on 21/06/2019 - 10:17

  RSPCA?

  • 

    RusMafia on 21/06/2019 - 12:25

    It got voted and already received a donation last Christmas (see FAQ section of this post)

  • 

    pe arl on 21/06/2019 - 21:40

    There's the Soi Dog Foundation :) They do amazing work

• 

  whytd on 21/06/2019 - 13:55

  +1 for asylum center.

• 

  kzu on 21/06/2019 - 15:16

  +1

  +1 for Doctors without Borders

• 

  bex000 on 21/06/2019 - 23:33

  Any thoughts for Melbourne City Mission?